Analysis Introduction A small boat of fibreglass construction, particularly with little or no load on board, is much more lively and more likely to be affected by buffeting winds and waves than one of similar size made of heavier material such as wood. The operator of the CFV127606 had been fishing in zone3K well within the 12-milelimit, the half-mile-from-shore placement of his gill nets was in a stormy area of rugged coastline with many inlets, small islands and numerous rocky shoals jutting from an irregular seabed. It was near one of these rocky shoals that breaks the sea surface only on occasion that the upturned boat was found. Capsizing During the course of bringing a gill net into the boat, it was the usual practice for the operator to have switched off the outboard motor and positioned himself further forward to help his crew member haul the net up and over the bow. When a workable portion of net was on board, with the vessel moored by the submerged gear acting as a bow anchor, both men would have set about clearing away bottom debris and fish before more net was brought in. The prevailing winds would have pivoted the boat stern to the shoal. Exact details of the event at the instant of capsizing are not known. When the fishing vessel was recovered, the vertical steel guide pin was bent over. Had the net become caught on the rocky bottom, it is possible that the fishers wrapped the near-to-water end of net around the vertical steel guide pin at the stern in order to break the net free by the lifting action of the boat. If the net suddenly lifted from the sea floor, the boat would move quickly under the influence of wind and wave, and surge from any nearby breaking shoal. From the damage to the skeg and the propeller, it was evident that the vessel had struck a rocky shoal before the vessel capsized. Decision to Retrieve Nets The rationale for the decision by the operator to retrieve his nets could not be determined. Following the occurrence, it was initially thought that there were several operational factors that offered him a window of opportunity to go out. However, there was concern that the fisheries management conditions listed on his licence may have influenced his decision. Fish had been scarce in the days prior to the occurrence and one string of nets had been set in deeper water to try for a better catch. The operator had been in the practice of hauling his nets on a daily basis to avoid wastage and the nets had been set for some time. Faced with the unfavourable weather forecast for the afternoon that had been in the broadcast since the previous day, he would have had the opportunity that morning to venture out to do the estimated two hours' work retrieving the nets. The alternative would have been to wait until the weather moderated following the gale. Based upon the information gathered, and considering his experience, it is reasonable to conclude that these operational factors were the most prevailing with respect to the decision to sail. Further, there is nothing to indicate that the operator could not have safely made the trip if the vessel had not struck the shoal. During the latter part of July preceding the closure of the summer fishing period, charges were laid against 14local fishers. The fall fishing period commenced on 11September and there was no indication that the weekend rule would not continue to be enforced, or that it could be relaxed for bad weather. On the day of the occurrence, however, several local fishers obtained adhoc permission to leave their nets out that day, which indicates that there was some general awareness of the DFO CP officers' discretionary powers. Although it is not within the mandate of the DFO to regulate safety at sea, fisheries management regulations can have an impact on reducing, or increasing, the risk of danger at sea. Safety must be kept in mind when fisheries regulations are being developed and, where they have a direct impact on fishing operations, they should provide fishers with sufficient flexibility to enable them to choose the safe option. Safety Lifejackets Neither fisher was wearing a standard approved lifejacket or alternative flotation device. The operator was said to have shared the opinion of many fishers that the Department of Transport standard approved lifejacket is too cumbersome for the wearer and prevents the proper and safe handling of fishing gear and equipment in a small boat. Transport Canada (TC) has been aware of this problem for some time. Efforts by TCMS are ongoing with respect to the development of a new standard of lifejacket suitable for fishers to wear at all times during fishing activities. Emergency Assistance Fishers operating in the same area will help each other in the event of an emergency, but no others were out that day. The CCGSCapeRoger and a SAR helicopter were not readily available. Even the local CCGA, which went quickly to the scene, was not alerted until an observer on shore happened to see the upturned craft about two hours after it was due back in port. Had the operator of the CFV127606 carried some means of telecommunication such as an emergency position indicating radio beacon (EPIRB) or an emergency waterproof very high frequency (VHF) radio, a Mayday signal may have saved lives. While retrieving nets in bad weather, the vessel struck a rocky shoal and it was subjected to a violent upsetting moment causing sudden capsizing.Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors While retrieving nets in bad weather, the vessel struck a rocky shoal and it was subjected to a violent upsetting moment causing sudden capsizing. All fishers may not have been aware that the DFO conservation officers had the discretionary power to waive the weekend rule. An effective means of communication, carried on the vessel, may have provided the capability to seek assistance. Neither fisher wore a standard approved lifejacket or alternative flotation device that may have increased survivability in the water.Findings as to Risks All fishers may not have been aware that the DFO conservation officers had the discretionary power to waive the weekend rule. An effective means of communication, carried on the vessel, may have provided the capability to seek assistance. Neither fisher wore a standard approved lifejacket or alternative flotation device that may have increased survivability in the water. Safety Action Taken Fisheries and Oceans Canada One month after the occurrence, the DFO issued a Notice to Fishers, NF 259/00, dated 10November2000, entitled Gill net regulations, which states: The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has received requests to remove the requirement to return gill nets to port each Saturday. DFO views the return of gill nets as a conservation measure to help minimize the amount of discarded fish due to untended gear. This conservation concern is still valid especially in Placentia Bay where high concentrations of fishing gear are now being experienced. DFO is also concerned about safety. Therefore, for conservation reasons the requirement to remove nets from the water on Saturday will remain in place. However, fishers are advised to take weather conditions into consideration at all times. DFO will not charge individual fishers for failure to adhere to this condition if the fisher feels it is unsafe due to weather conditions to retrieve his gill nets. DFO will be monitoring this situation and enforcement action will be taken where blatant disregard of the policy is detected. Transport Canada Lifejackets TC's work is ongoing with respect to the development of a new lifejacket standard that will allow for more flexibility in design (i.e. wearable even when conducting fishing activities), while still maintaining a high degree of safety. The carriage and wearing of lifejackets is being discussed by the Fishing Vessel Safety Standing Committee at the CMAC as part of the Regulatory Reform initiative. Emergency Assistance TC is in the process of conducting a risk assessment study concerning distress-alerting requirements for vessels of this type and size. A final report is expected to be completed by the November 2003 CMAC meeting.